In biology the word autogenesis has been used to describe two similar concepts:

* Abiogenesis - the origin of life, as used by Aristotle and in modern theory.[1] * Orthogenesis - a discredited evolutionary idea that hypothesised a directed 'teleological' form of evolution.

I thought Abiogenesis had nothing to do with evolution, Evolution (fact to me) doesn't explain how life originally begun, it explains once life has begun how it con evolve to give more complex species.

So IT DOESN'T need to know explain how life begun, that should be a different science, called " Abiogenesis " << this is all my opinion

Many experiments have indicated that the conditions of the early earth were ideal for the spontaneous formation of biological compounds and perhaps even the first life forms, but as you said that really has little or nothing to do with evolution itself. Evoution is very well-supported by evidence and there are no serious scientific theories that contradict it, so the answer to your question is that it's pretty solid.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

alextemplet wrote:Many experiments have indicated that the conditions of the early earth were ideal for the spontaneous formation of biological compounds and perhaps even the first life forms, but as you said that really has little or nothing to do with evolution itself. Evoution is very well-supported by evidence and there are no serious scientific theories that contradict it, so the answer to your question is that it's pretty solid.

Mutations are generting the diversity, but they are only part of the whole process: gene duplications, genetic transfer (whatever the mechanism), crossing over and everything that shuffle and distribute gene can impact the fitness of the organisms, and all that will be subject to selection. That is what is covered y the word evolution.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

canalon wrote:Mutations are generting the diversity, but they are only part of the whole process: gene duplications, genetic transfer (whatever the mechanism), crossing over and everything that shuffle and distribute gene can impact the fitness of the organisms, and all that will be subject to selection. That is what is covered y the word evolution.

A series of mistakes cannot do anything harmonic. Especially, if the way of reproduction does not allow the bad genes to be rejected.

Who ever says mutations are a mistake? If there's no mutation, there's no genetic variation, and thus zero ability to adapt to a changing environment. Viruses are a prime example. If they didn't mutate, they'd go extinct as soon as a single drug was developed to kill them. Yet they're still here, because of their ability to mutate. In my opinion, that's a survival strategy, not a mistake.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

enarees wrote:A series of mistakes cannot do anything harmonic. Especially, if the way of reproduction does not allow the bad genes to be rejected.

That is a strong statement, that is very wrong. Creative errors are common. Just see simple mutations giving rise to antibiotic resistance. Gene duplications, chaperonins and other mechanism allow the accumulation of mutations without effects, until an event disturb the balance. And generally bad mutations can be excluded from the gene pool quite quickly. Plus remember that the definition of genes in terms of fitness would not necessarily match that of an individual. For example a deficiency with a very delayed onset, might be neutral or even beneficiary from the evolutionary point of view.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)